Russia refuses to ratify Kyoto protocol

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...l,0,1312396.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

Russian leadership makes a wise decision: Film at 11.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find this to be odd... if the Russians did ratify they would have gotten huge deals from the Europeans for investment and the what not... also Russia has already reached her Kyoto goals, I mean they have a drastic cut in CO2 emissions from the Soviet era, they would have received lot's of money from states who would have bought energy credits...Well it's not official yet,I think this is probably a Russian tactic to get more money out of the Europeans.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

let´s wait and see what putin says

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps they feel that global warming is the perfect answer against cold siberian winters, I urge the Canadians also to retreat from Kyoto, how about a long long indian summer ?

 

What will happen is this:

Greenhouse effect will kick in, sealevel will rise and Stokes Pennwalt will become the leader of the Smokers on Waterworld

Before & After Kyoto:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You have too much time on your hands vortexx. I have a feeling that it would take a better action hero then Kevin Kossner to defeat stokes. Maybe I should buy a jet ski.

Russia actualy didnt reject the kyoto protocol as of yet, that was just some advisor to the president blowing some hot air. It actualy makes good economic sence for Russia to stick with the protocols, because they have been under emmisions quotas since the collapse of the soviet union, leaving them with billions of dollars worth of right to pollute that they could sell to other kyoto observing nations.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3926600&pageNumber=1

 

The Kyoto Protocol is a good start, but far too limited. I expect Putin will ratify it especially after his recent conquests of "Russian" oil tycoons.

 

Well it's really a two part equation.

The fundamental flaw with Kyoto is that it seeks to solve a problem that we do not yet know enough about to say is a concern yet. Perhaps when more legitimate research is conducted to causally relate carbon dioxide levels with global thermal count we can consider something like Kyoto, but as of what science can tell us right now, it is not enough to justify the exorbitant cost. Preliminary research has been founded largely on biased data collection and patently stupid experimentation; poisoned with agenda to the point at being utterly worthless beyond a few Greenpeace pamphlets.

The other thing we will have to do is fix the whole benchmark thing. That means re-allocating the allowance system so that poor countries are not allowed to be such odious polluters simply because their GDP is lower.

 

The other thing we will have to do is fix the whole benchmark thing. That means re-allocating the allowance system so that poor countries are not allowed to be such odious polluters simply because their GDP is lower.

I think that's fair, you have had over 200 years to destroy the enviroment. Why should be put at a economic dis-advantage because now you feel it nessecary to "save the earth"? Those countries would replace the CO2 that was eliminated by the West, and hopefully with cheaper tech, such pollution would be a thing of the past.

 

The error in this statement makes your argument fallacious.

 

The error in this statement makes your argument fallacious.

jfsfiouter.... that's how you sound like you don't show me the error. Who has been industrialized for the last 200 years? Surely not Indonesia, or Brazil...so what is the fallaciousness of my arguemnt? Unless you deny the locations of the industrial revolution.

 

Good news!

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/03/russia.kyoto/index.html

I knew Russia would ratify, that was probably a move to scare the Euros into offering more money, and the "uncertainty" is really IMO a nice Russian ruse.

 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
Read up sparky, Unless you think the EPA or the National Academy of Sciences are just a bunch of hemp smoking hippies.

I wonder what credible sources you have to prove that evidence for global warming is the result of so called bias and stupid experiments?

 

Not the timeframe, the causes and consequences.

I think you need to read the EPA's site some more yourself.

There are two studies that I regard as the absolute worst science of the twentieth century: the first was the ozone hole. These idiots postulated a question that had only one possible answer and then acted surprised when it turned out to be true. Running a close second to that insult is the sideshow of Global Warming. Having the same lack of factual support (grounded in biased data collection and patently stupid experimentation), global warming has systematically used correlation to imply causality. The only two things that are known for certain is that:

1. Average global thermal count has been increasing in the timespan of the measurements.
2. Human CO2 production had also been increasing in the timespan of the measurements.

That was seemingly all the linkage these people needed to construct a vast and complex mechanism for them to actually be related. They then back is up with measurements taken 10 miles downwind from and active volcano to show the horrors that civilization is bringing to the poor defenseless planet. There are prehaps 30 people on the planet who are making a honest and truly scientific investigation, and sadly, they are getting lost in the static generated by the people whose most compelling arguement is "can we afford to wait?" My own response to that would be "do we even get a choice?" With the numbers they create their own studies would indicate that we're already fucked, so why bother?

The reduction of CO2 production is probably going to be a good thing, but for absolutely none of the reason the global warming supporters would have you believe. I have ignored them (as opposed to attacking them) based on the strength of this belief alone. Global Warming is absolutely happening. Yet we have absolutely no idea how much humans have to do with it, if anything at all. Just like the ozone hole theory, global warming will die a quiet death in the coming years and will undoubtedly be replaced with something else. We've seen this kind of long term faddish nonsense before and it has yet again taken on a different form. I've have been singularly unimpressed by their preformance this time around.

I fully support research into finding the cause behind global thermal count fluctuation. I also support the reduction of human CO2 output for tertiary reasons - none of which have to do with climate. However, if you read up on the EPA's site, they have it in text that there is no conclusive evidence that human CO2 production has anything to do with the temperature fluctuations. I mean, the middle ages were warmer than today, so go figure. While many of the frothing Greenpeace weenies do have somewhat of a noble intent as an impetus for their actions, we would all be better off without their help.

 

Actually, apathy has no impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the Ozone layer is still being depleted by human emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/q_a.html
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/resource/index.html

Although you are probably right about "Something else" replacing global warming, but its sort of reassuring to know that you and yours will deny that too, even while we die of skin cancer huddled in the midwest as the oceans rise.

I would love to hear your thoughts on evolution.

 

Not the timeframe, the causes and consequences

Again you aren't explaining in adequate terms, expand please. Also show me the name of this logical fallacy.

 

You get your info on environmental issues from the EPA site?, lol.

 

Global Warming Wingnuts

The arrogance of humans is sometimes troubling but sometimes laughable. In this case it's the latter. To suggest that we could change the temperature of the entire globe in a handful of years is utterly assinine. The earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Don't lose sight of that all important fact. Within the last 10,000 years (which incidentally is a blink of an eye in a geologic timeframe) we saw the majority of North America covered by a sheet of ice. And now some would suggest that we are capable of significantly warming the planet? Utter rubbish. The earth will be fine with or without us.

Nico, you never miss an opportunity to slam people for past deeds. What's up with that?

 

Re: Global Warming Wingnuts

Its not the earth were most worried about, that would be altruistic.